Attached is a review two of us put together. We would be pleased if
you can include this in your site. 

Carl Williams
Arlington, VA
carlw4514@yahoo.com

The "Far West" option of AH/VG The Civil War 1861-1865, to judge by most
players I have talked to, is perhaps not used all that often. But two
wargamers, Kirk Crane of Ft Myers, FL, and myself, Carl Williams of
Arlington VA, decided to give it a go a few months ago for the
experience, playing by email. It was going to be interesting to play an
option that maybe few players ever do much with, and see how it affected
the overall game balance. Of course, in the meantime we had the fun of
developing our strategies for adding victory points and tripping up the
other player in his quest for the same. 

The Rulebook has a whole section for the Far West rules, but we were not
very far into it before deciding that we needed to clarify a few things.
I have seen the rules for the main game, without the Far West option,
both praised for being concise and on the other hand criticized for
having omissions and lack of clarification. I'd say the latter is the
most often cited opinion. I do believe that the game went into
production before all the kinks for the Far West Option were worked out;
but that's debatable and I suppose that most games likely have aspects
of last minute additions that are not sufficiently game-tested.
Nonetheless, I wonder if this is one of the reasons that, apparently,
few players use it. We wound up clarifying so many things that I thought
it was worth making note of them and sharing it. 

DYNAMICS OF VICTORY POINTS AND DESTROYED SITES 

Right away we noted this aspect of the game needed clarification. The
rules provide that cities or stockades can be permanently eliminated as
a feature on the map by Indian Raids [pg 50, end of 2nd paragraph]. So
the result of a raid may be progress towards gaining Victory Pts, but
also has this other consequence of "complete" elimination. We were left
to decide exactly what this means. A certain case can be made that in
the event that Santa Fe, say, gets raided and destroyed, that no one can
earn the victory points for converting the New Mexico Territory, since
one of the required sites to control no longer exists! We decided,
however, that the game designers did not intend this consequence and
went by the following: 

The features on the map are mostly under the control of one side or the
other. We began with Turn One and in this case, all of New Mexico and
Kansas is Union controlled and all of Texas is Confederate controlled.
The Indian Territory is the exception, with many places not controlled
by either side. The Indian Tribes can raid in all of these places; if a
tribe successfully raids a site controlled by the enemy, then a
'destroyed' marker is placed there and the side that controlled the site
prior to the raid is the victim of the raid, every two such resulting in
a Victory Point for his opponent. The site is considered destroyed for
the purpose of placing depots, and the victimized player cannot remove
the destroyed marker by any action. But we decided for the purpose of
state or territory conversion, if the site is one of the essential
sites, this is still accounted for and it would be possible for it to
change hands by a later occupation by enemy forces, even if this is in
its new "destroyed" condition. In this event, the new owner may count it
towards state conversion, but the destroyed marker stays and still
counts against the ORIGINAL owner of the site as far as counting towards
victory points by Indian Raid (the new owner does not inherit the
condition); but the site cannot now be raided again or used in any other
way; that is, it is considered a non-feature in every other way. 

In Indian Territory we decided it was possible to raid a site not owned
by either player; there is no reason to raid a neutral site, except to
deny it to the enemy for some purpose such as placing a depot. 

We decided that it is not possible to voluntarily relinquish control of
a controlled site; if the site is vulnerable to raiding you are stuck
with it. Thus taking control of various hexes might be something to be
avoided if such has no strategic value. 

I guess it must be said that it is possible that the game designers
intended for the game to be played such that one player could, say, make
it impossible to convert New Mexico by destroying one of the essential
sites. The pertinent page 50 rule is not ambiguously stated; however, it
seems clear that there could easily be such an unintended , unforeseen
consequence of the rule considering the other omissions seen in the Far
West rules, and we wanted to play out our strategies for converting the
territories without Indian raids becoming a factor in such strategy. 

WATIE, AND OTHER ENTRY/ACTIVATION CLARIFICATIONS 

One of the problems with the Far West rules is accommodating the
restrictions of 15.1, which states that Far West commands are only to be
used on the Far West map, and then trying to honor the letter of the
15.5 reinforcement rules. The second paragraph of 15.1 is very specific
as to the what the Far West map includes. Rule 15.5 states that Far West
CPs are the ones to be used to enter all the Far West reinforcement
types. The only way you can make sense of both of these rules is to say
that all reinforcements have to then be entered on the Far West map.
This is possible to do, but we were then left with the question of
whether or not it was the intention of the game designers to prohibit
the entry of Civs as reinforcements in the Trans-Miss; the rules for
Texas rangers specifically say "Far West map" for entry, but for civs it
just says "Indian Territory." We decided this, again, could be
oversight, so we allowed Civs to be entered in the Trans-Miss but using
*Trans-Miss* CPs only when doing so. It was also agreed that a Civ could
be entered in a neutral site and then immediately control it for one
side. Furthermore, we did not require that the hex be in supply for Civs
to be entered. 

We were also pretty sure that it should be OK to enter Stand Watie in
the Trans-Miss, since it was likely that the only legal place he could
be entered would be there (since he has to be entered on a hex with a CS
Civ). Again, we decided it was oversight not to have the rules state
that he was to be entered without cost, like any other leader. Note that
a strict reading of the rules would have Watie entered at the cost of
one FW CP in Indian Territory on the Far West portion of the I. T. only,
on a CS Civ that was also necessarily in the Far West zone. This just
did not feel right, and we did otherwise. 

As the game progressed, the Union player wound up controlling all the
Civs and this condition became uncontested. For the rest of the game,
Watie stayed on the Far West entry track un-enterable. Items on the Far
West entry track are strictly optional to enter; note that is the
opposite case for leaders and reinforcements on the regular game record
track; the counters there cannot be withheld in a turn unless the turn
ends abruptly in the action phase. Thus items on the Far West
reinforcement track are more like NSPs in that they are both optional
and require CPs to enter. 

RETURN OF SPs THAT HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED 

The rules for the entry of other Far West counters were clear and seemed
indisputable, except for the matter of the return of Far West forces to
the reinforcement track [15.5]. Specifically, it seemed all counters
were not permanently eliminated but just go back to the reinforcement
track, but was this to include SPs? SPs are not mentioned in 15.5
specifically, and the regular rules for entry of SPs are very
restrictive. There are two requirements for a hex to be eligible to
enter SPs, one is that the hex be in supply [pg 33 left 3rd para] and
the other that the hex is a VP city or an Army [following paras]. Note
that there are no VP cities on Map B except in Texas. This is very
unfair to the US player, if the SPs are supposed to return. To have the
SPs return would be quite contrary, also, to the way the game is played
in general. For a number of reasons, really, we decided that it was an
oversight not to state that the SPs do not return. 

THE MOST SURPRISING ODDITY 

Since tribal Indians are not either Union or Confederate forces, but
only under the control of one player for a time, certain consequences
follow. Section 15.2 covers raids, alerts, and destruction and it does
*not* say you make any distinction whether the stockade or city
approached or raided is friendly or enemy; thus all such sites are
possibly alerted and can potentially be raided. After all, the tribe
could change allegiance, and so there is really a reason always to roll
for alerts for any site. Note also that a player would not want to pass
through his own site on the way to raid elsewhere, as the site would
have to be raided even though that player owned it; the rules do not
have "optional" raiding. In fact, in our game one player decided to
"self-raid" one of his stockades in order to eliminate it as a place for
his opponent to place a depot. This was quite a shock, but a determined
search of the rules found no support for not allowing it. The site was
destroyed and it wound up counting against the player who made this raid
on his own site, as part of one victory point for his opponent.
Obviously this oddity can be expected to be a rare event. 

Also, since the Indian tribes do not really belong to any side, I felt
that it was OK if they wandered or retreated into Mexico, making it a
haven. I thought this was historically OK as well and explained also why
there are hexes in Mexico. However, Kirk did not agree; page 51, 15.6,
does specifically say "Mexico may never be entered by the forces of
either player..." My opinion is that an Indian Tribe is not owned by
either player and thus is not one of a side's "forces, " but there
wasn't any support for my view to be found in the rulebook so I conceded
this point in our game. My opinion is biased by the fact I think it is
pretty cool if they could go into Mexico. It is a minor matter, after
all, but one we really did not resolve. 

NEW MEXICO AND INDIAN TERRITORY STATUS 

New Mexico can be converted by either side. This is *not* an "end of the
game" condition, but end of turn. One player could convert it and the
other convert it back. To begin the game, it is neutral. If it is
converted, the usual rules apply (the player for whom the turf is enemy
would need a leader to move an SP, for example). Indian Territory is
never converted, but the victory pts count at the end of the game if one
side has the sites. There are several states with blue-colored hexes
that can never be converted to neutral because they have no VP cities;
but this would seem to have a lot to do with the improbability of
sustained Confederate presence. Note that New Mexico is the only entity
that can be converted to enemy even though no VP cities are in it; other
consequences follow from this distinction. 

[Contributed by Kirk Crane]: 

The "Far West" option also puts into play a small number of additional
Victory Points for both sides. Specifically both the Indian Territory
and New Mexico both offer 2 Victory Points for control of key territory
at the end of the game. Indian Territory is equally available to either
player. Control depends on acquisition of Civilized Indians which can be
used to garrison the key sites for control and more importantly, on the
allocation of SPs by either side to control and/or attack the required
Victory Point locations. New Mexico starts the game with two of the
three required Victory Point locations under Union control. The third
location required for control of New Mexico, El Paso, is under
Confederate control, in Confederate territory, and starts the game with
a Confederate SP located in the city. This is an important advantage for
the Confederate player. The Union player must not only allocate SP(s)
but must also use a leader and Command Points to move in Confederate
territory and to occupy El Paso, one of the key locations for control of
New Mexico. It is unlikely that Texas will become neutral, at least not
early in the game, if at all. The ability of the Confederate player to
locate additional SP(s), if desired, closer to New Mexico and the
ability to move without a leader in both Texas and New Mexico provides
an advantage to the Confederate player in controlling New Mexico. Unless
the Confederate player is lucky enough to eliminate the 1 Union SP that
starts in New Mexico and the area is ignored by the Union player, it is
unlikely that the Confederate player will be able to control New Mexico
with the 1 SP that starts in El Paso. The Confederate player can be
expected to attempt to eliminate the 1 Union SP that starts in New
Mexico at a risky "E column" attack. While risky, if successful, the
Confederate player gains an advantage because of the previously
discussed difficulty of sending additional Union SP(s) to the area. This
strategy failing, the Confederate player must then decide whether
allocation of additional SP(s) to control New Mexico is worth the
benefit of possibly acquiring 2 VPs. There are likely to be other
demands more crucial to the Confederate player than the allocation of
even 1 SP to New Mexico in order to control the 2 VPs at the end of the
game. Perhaps many times New Mexico will remain neutral with neither
side willing to allocate the necessary resources for control. 

THE DYNAMICS OF INDIAN TRIBES IN THE FAR WEST THEATER 

[Contributed by Kirk Crane]. 

Early in the game, the player who gains the initiative early in the
phases of a Game Turn will be in a better position to activate the units
available. This is particularly true on key game turns, such as Turn 3,
when a number of Civilized Indian and Tribal Indian counters become
available. Often it is a race to who can activate the "up for grabs"
counters first. The Confederate Indian leader, Watie, is only useful
when the Confederate controls one or preferably more of the Civilized
Indian counters. Once controlled, Civilized Indians are difficult to
gain control by the opposing player since they must be eliminated and
then reactivated on a subsequent turn. They do not change allegiance as
do the Tribal Indians. Many times the Civilized Indian counters become
"garrison" units in Indian Territory or other areas in the Far West
theater. They are not as likely to be used in combat since there is a
high probability that they will be removed before combat is even
resolved and are the first to take casualties if they do remain. 

Tribal Indians (includes Mescaleros) are useful for raids and the
objective of massacres. There is a distinct advantage to the Union
player for controlling many of the Tribal Indians since they all start
in Texas and there are numerous Stockades and Cities available for
raids. Since the Confederate player must move Tribal Indians toward a
smaller number of Stockades and Cities that are much farther away in New
Mexico and Kansas, the Union player can more easily raid. At one Victory
Point for each two Stockades or Cities successfully raided, the Union
player should be able to gain enough Victory Points to offset the
Confederate Victory Points from raids and enough extra Victory Points to
offset other Confederate Victory Points accumulated through naval
commerce raiding and any other small number of Victory Point sources
available to the Confederate player. The Confederate player must
activate and centrally locate his four Texas Ranger counters, as they
become available, in order to protect key Stockades and Cities and to
attack Tribal Indians. Since both Tribal Indians and Texas Rangers can
move like cavalry in supply, up to 6 hexes per phase, the Rangers must
be located with a radius that protects the most number of Stockades and
Cities so that if a raid is conducted, the Texas Ranger will be able to
react to attack the Tribal Indian. That ability can influence the use of
Tribal Indians by the Union player to raid many targets. If attacked by
a Ranger there is a possibility, not a probability, of loss of the
Tribal Indian. As the Stockades and Cities become farther away, this can
cost a number of CPs to reactivate an eliminated Tribal Indian on a
subsequent turn and then move it back into an area where it can raid. In
our game, a limited number of Ranger attacks against Tribal Indians
resulted in a Ranger victory on each occasion. That will not often
happen, but possible subsequent attack by a Ranger does become a
consideration for the Union player. 

The Tribal Indian Raids and Stockade and City alerts seem cumbersome and
unnecessarily difficult. This is symptomatic of what appears to be an
underdeveloped portion of the game that may not have been adequately
playtested or attention paid to that portion of the game prior to
production. It is easy to overlook an Alert roll for a nearby Stockade
or City that is affected by a movement even if it is not the intended
target of a Raid, but rather is just along the route of march. Alert and
Massacre rolls could be simplified rather than having to roll many times
for multiple Stockades and Cities for each hex that is affected by a
movement. 

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN INDIAN TYPES 

[Carl Williams] 

The exact status of the Civilized Indians is a bit murky; this is what I
get as the difference between them and tribal Indians: 

Tribal Indian: 6 movement points at all times
Civilized Indian: 4 MPs if in supply

Tribal Indian: ignores the effects of friendly, enemy, or neutral territory.
Civilized Indian: also ignores these effects

-both types are restricted to certain areas, however

Tribal Indian: supply is assumed
Civilized Indian: has to trace supply

Tribal: raids cities and stockades
Civ.: does not have this ability

Tribal: allegiance can change
Civ: can't change once on the map

Tribal: do not activate entry of militia
Civ: do activate entry of militia

Tribal: automatically eliminated by combat with an SP
-fights on equal ground with Rangers and Civs but with a special rule, not 
the CRT
-*cannot* initiate combat

Civ: has a special rule when in combat with SPs (likely - but not automatic - 
elimination)
-*can* initiate combat

Tribal: doesn't fight other tribal Indians

Civ: can fight enemy Civs

Tribal: can retreat before combat (but does not screen like cavalry)   

Civ: cannot retreat before combat
     
Civ: is like an SP in many respects, can take control of a site for his

side, and can become demoralized. 

Tribal: is not like an SP at all and cannot control sites or get
demoralized; the sole purpose of a tribe is to raid. 

Civ: clearly belongs to one side, and can be combined with friendly SPs 

Tribal: belongs to one side only in the sense of control of movement;
cannot share a hex with a friendly SP, and can raid a site belonging to
anyone or no one. 

GAME BALANCE EFFECTS 

Overall, I would say adding the Far West option seemed to maintaining
game balance fairly. In the matter of Indian Raids, the US Player has
the advantage, as most of the nearby targets are in Texas. The Texas
Ranger forces help keep them at bay, but the raids continue and by the
end of the game the Texas map should be well dotted with 'destroyed'
sites. Also aiding the US player is the fact that the additional CPs
during the uses of the CP table mean that the turn is likely to be
longer and, thus, it is more likely that a turn will have additional
uses of the CP table. Longer turns are very important for Union victory.

Aiding the CS player, however, is that the Far West CPs are distributed
by the same procedure to both players. On the first use of the CP table,
one player is as likely as the other to have the advantage in FW CPs,
and often both will have equal FW CPs; in the further uses of the CP
table in a turn, each will receive an equal number of FW CPs. Therefore
in a game with the Far West option, the CS player is less disadvantaged
in total resources. Furthermore, the nature of the Far West actions
allow good use of the smaller Dice Differences, helping avoid the
predicament of having to waste CPs on useless actions or even having to
just throw them away, a problem that tends to plague the Reb side more
than the Yank side IMO. More subtly, the US player is less able to force
the CS player to spend his CPs before he spends his own, so this obvious
advantage gets diminished. These particulars really help the Confederate
side, and the fact that the Federal side likely winds up getting more
Victory Points is definitely mitigated, even though the Victory
Conditions for the end of the game do *not* change when using the Far
West option! 

SUMMARY [Contributed by Kirk Crane] 

The "Far West" option of Victory Games is an interesting option that, in
my experience, is not often used by players. Perhaps because it is an
"option" as opposed to an integral part of the game or perhaps because
it adds a large additional map (Texas, Indian Territory, western Kansas,
and New Mexico comprises a large area) with low counter density and it
takes up a large physical space, many players seem to not use the
"option". There also seems to be a feeling that the actions in the Far
West are a distraction or an opinion by some that "nothing much happens
there." For new players or those who do not often play the game, there
is an element of truth to the latter statement. 

My opinion is that incorporation of the "Far West" option makes for a
more complete game. There were actions in history that took place in the
area and although they were small in comparison to other theaters, the
resources and manpower and the allocation of both to the war effort of
both sides are more fully represented by use of the Far West option.
There are also a number of interesting new dimensions to strategy and
management of actions and command points for both sides when the option
is used. 

The "Far West" option puts all of Texas into play. Since a primary
objective of the Union is to convert Southern states to neutral, the
inclusion of Texas provides the opportunity to convert that state.
Without use of the "Far West" option, it is just assumed that the Union
player will not expend resources or manpower to convert the state or to
close many relatively small value ports to the Confederacy along the
Texas coast. While that often requires a disproportionate expenditure of
valuable manpower and scarce naval points by the Union for relatively
small reward, it is not a possibility if the "Far West" option is not
used. 

Use of the "Far West" option changes the game if only in subtle ways.
Use of CPs is an art during each phase of a game turn. Both sides gain
from an ability to use low dice differential CP rolls in the Far West
theater while awaiting important larger dice differential rolls,
possibly in another theater. In effect, both sides can "stall" by
activating or moving a Tribal Indian or Texas Ranger unit when the dice
differential is "1" or "2", and a larger dice differential is needed for
an action elsewhere. This can, of course, backfire because turns can, at
times, end abruptly and CPs in other theaters may go unused. At first
this ability appeared to favor the Union since the Union most often has
CPs remaining after the Confederate player has used all CPs. There is
the obvious advantage to having CPs remaining after the opposing player
has used all of his CPs. But it is duly noted that the Confederate
player can also use small dice differential roll CPs in the Far West for
much of a phase to "save" CPs for use in other theaters and to react to
the Union player. So it is undetermined who benefits the most from an
additional theater in which CPs can be used. Probably both, depending on
use of CPs, dice rolls, and game dynamics. 

It appears much of the "Far West" option was added on to a well
developed game system and that the "Far West" option was not fully
developed or playtested. Even though not as well developed or smooth
flowing as the remainder of Victory Games / The Civil War, is an
important and integral part of the game that warrants players attention
and incorporation into the game. It adds strategy options and adds
variety to game play. I enjoy the addition and think that it makes a
more realistic and better overall game. 

Kirk Crane